rainpunk's review
1.0
Not a great read. Reads like the Bible. A Wikipedia-like telling of events, but with old language (they use the word "anon" and "smote" about 1000 times). I read this as a first introduction to Arthurian legend (apart from what anyone might glean from cultural references in general). I probably should have just read Wikipedia articles instead of this, though.
It might be more enjoyable if studied as part of a class in order to give context to the people, morals, and real-world history that affected these legends. Without more rigorous context, many of the stories can feel odd or inconsistent. For example, every "good guy" including Merlin is Christian. So I'd love to know how the audience back in the day reconciled belief in the Bible and the sorcery in the legends. Did they have a different view then of sorcery compared to Christians today? Did they consider sorcery neutral or even God-given? Or did the story-tellers and listeners not care because sorcery was known to be fictional, so there was no real-world moral conflict to worry about?
Likewise, I felt there was some inconsistency in what makes a "good" knight. At many points, they emphasized bloodlines (many knights were brothers to knights), but in some examples knights could rise from humble origins. Knights of the round table were meant to be merciful, but duels to the death with strangers were common. A duel between strangers encountering each other by chance could be a test of respect for each other or could result in death. This feels strange today. I would have liked more academic context here too.
Long story short, not a great thing to read on its own. Probably better within an academic setting. Wouldn't generally recommend.
It might be more enjoyable if studied as part of a class in order to give context to the people, morals, and real-world history that affected these legends. Without more rigorous context, many of the stories can feel odd or inconsistent. For example, every "good guy" including Merlin is Christian. So I'd love to know how the audience back in the day reconciled belief in the Bible and the sorcery in the legends. Did they have a different view then of sorcery compared to Christians today? Did they consider sorcery neutral or even God-given? Or did the story-tellers and listeners not care because sorcery was known to be fictional, so there was no real-world moral conflict to worry about?
Likewise, I felt there was some inconsistency in what makes a "good" knight. At many points, they emphasized bloodlines (many knights were brothers to knights), but in some examples knights could rise from humble origins. Knights of the round table were meant to be merciful, but duels to the death with strangers were common. A duel between strangers encountering each other by chance could be a test of respect for each other or could result in death. This feels strange today. I would have liked more academic context here too.
Long story short, not a great thing to read on its own. Probably better within an academic setting. Wouldn't generally recommend.
piperkitty81's review against another edition
3.0
Glad I read it and it’s interesting to see where all the tales came from. My practical side felt that they could have all avoided a lot of trouble if they talked before challenging and fighting.
jaskovivich's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
aprater's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting classic and I can see why so many tales have spun from it but several passages are slow and leave the mind to wander to other things.
jeszornel's review against another edition
3.0
Honestly, these knights bring dishonour upon themselves. Wherever they go they fight first, and ask questions later...most of this book a knight comes upon another knight and they do battle. And then they realize they know eachtother...and then they show their respect for each other and stop battling. I mean come on. Most of the battles ended this way, it's so stupid. Knights! Am I right? There was this one part where two Knights were fighting in favour of a lady (of course one of them was stupid Knight Tristram), then they realized they knew each other, and stepped away from battle (in respect of course of each other *eyes rolling*) and then proceeded to allow the lady to chose which Knight to run to -- like a dog (of course she did not choose Tristtram because he sucks**). Honestly, this books portrayal of women was disappointing and very insulting.
For example, Lady Guinevere is supposed to be King Arthur's Queen, equal in position and respect. However, overall I found her to be very dramatic for no reason (to be fair everyone was overly dramatic-- lots of swooning Knights in this book lol). Also, I didn't understand how every time she did something/ or was suspected of doing something they led her to be burnt at the stake (~3 occurrences). That seems to be a little extreme.
One final note: The word 'Anon' took up approximately 90% of all the words in the novel. While that figure is not based on facts, that is what it felt like. How hard would it have been to pick up a thesaurus and use it? Impossible it seems. Unimaginable it seems.
**Don't get me started on Knight Tristram...he was the worst. First of all, when he is "in disguise" in front of some Kings' family (he killed the King), he calls himself 'Tramtrist' -- wow, you totally fooled us all.
For example, Lady Guinevere is supposed to be King Arthur's Queen, equal in position and respect. However, overall I found her to be very dramatic for no reason (to be fair everyone was overly dramatic-- lots of swooning Knights in this book lol). Also, I didn't understand how every time she did something/ or was suspected of doing something they led her to be burnt at the stake (~3 occurrences). That seems to be a little extreme.
One final note: The word 'Anon' took up approximately 90% of all the words in the novel. While that figure is not based on facts, that is what it felt like. How hard would it have been to pick up a thesaurus and use it? Impossible it seems. Unimaginable it seems.
**Don't get me started on Knight Tristram...he was the worst. First of all, when he is "in disguise" in front of some Kings' family (he killed the King), he calls himself 'Tramtrist' -- wow, you totally fooled us all.
thesydda's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
2.0
readerturnedwriter's review against another edition
2.0
Having watched Merlin, reading the originals was something I was really interested in. Overall, it was a little interesting, though mostly disappointing.
I found the writing itself to be easy to understand and read. The stories were a mixed bag, some were fairly interesting and others were very boring to me (knights killing other knights for no good reason, etc). The end was depressing but not surprising (it's pretty famous and I knew what to expect).
The main problem I had with the book was that it was very obviously written in a different time and culture. Looking at it from our modern time, the motivations fall short, the way women and relationships are portrayed are inappropriate, and the medieval take on Christianity can be hard to read. The other main problem is that the book focused on things I didn't care about (like the actual fights between knights) but the parts I would have found interesting (like a long lost son being reunited with a father) were given one to two lines and the nuances of the situations downplayed. We rarely got to know characters past their actions and a vague, unbelievable motivation. This caused me to read more for discovering the plot rather than being immersed in the world and getting to know the characters.
I am glad to have read the originals and I look forward to reading adaptations in the future.
I found the writing itself to be easy to understand and read. The stories were a mixed bag, some were fairly interesting and others were very boring to me (knights killing other knights for no good reason, etc). The end was depressing but not surprising (it's pretty famous and I knew what to expect).
The main problem I had with the book was that it was very obviously written in a different time and culture. Looking at it from our modern time, the motivations fall short, the way women and relationships are portrayed are inappropriate, and the medieval take on Christianity can be hard to read. The other main problem is that the book focused on things I didn't care about (like the actual fights between knights) but the parts I would have found interesting (like a long lost son being reunited with a father) were given one to two lines and the nuances of the situations downplayed. We rarely got to know characters past their actions and a vague, unbelievable motivation. This caused me to read more for discovering the plot rather than being immersed in the world and getting to know the characters.
I am glad to have read the originals and I look forward to reading adaptations in the future.
aeolias's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
2.0